[49258] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN IP allocation questionn
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Thu Jun 27 04:56:59 2002
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:56:26 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20020627011350.B2572@lightbearer.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to=
ARIN once
>they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN=
netblock
>assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept=
through another
>change...)
=09The guidelines have a strong preference for singly-homed=
networks to use IP
address space allocated to them from their upstreams. I can think=
of no
logical reason* an ISP would prefer their customers to go to ARIN=
rather than
deal with them. The global routing table is better off for it as=
well, as the
customer's /20 would be a new route, rather than being included=
in their
provider's presumably larger block.
=09On the other hand, I can think of many reasons a customer would=
prefer to
deal with ARIN than their upstream, assuming the meager cost=
wasn't a factor
and they don't mind polluting the global table a tad. Of course,=
that's not
really an operational issue.
=09DS
=09* The only reason I could possibly think of is if the ISP is=
afraid that the
large allocation will impact their future allocations because=
they don't have
the confidence or competence to extract a proper justification=
from their
customer and present/defend that justification to ARIN when their=
next
allocation comes up. But this wasn't the reason you were thinking=
of, right?
